"Every drug has side-effects but the media is acting like this drug will is unreasonably dangerous."

To go along with Cabbage, it's also unreasonably dangerous to take any drug with severe side effects if there is no reason to. Studies have shown it to be inconclusive or even worse than taking nothing.

Going into a malaria zone? Sure, take it. Have lupus? Take it. Have something that this will do nothing against? Yeah, probably shouldn't.

Pointless discussion though considering he's probably not even taking it

I could find Trump wrong 90% of the time and then the 10% of the time he's right, and people are still bashing him, Its going to look like I'm defending him when in reality I'm just pushing back on conclusions that don't add up. We don't discuss the 90% of things I bash trump on so it gives the impression I'm bending over backwards. The thing about me is I don't agree or disagree with people. I don't target or hate people. I focus on ideas and conclusions instead of the person who has them. so when Trump does something, I'm not inclined to automatically think its bad because its Trump doing it. I see a lot of people on here saying things are bad just because x person said them. Its definitely a common mentality.

I specifically talked about the malaria use because I don't see how this is any different than taking it just because you're going to a malaria hotspot of course, other than the fact that its not "proven" to work.

No one ever said it was dangerous when they told me to take it. That would seem like a cruel omission if it really is dangerous and not just "potentially dangerous" like every other drug's 30 second list of potential harmful reactions and side-effects. If that was the case, they would just tell people to wear DEET and this drug wouldn't be used. Theres a huge difference between that and something like chemo that literally is intended to destroy cells.

Obviously you have to weigh the risk on both ends which is why its a prescription drug and exactly what was described in the note from the white house physician. Trump didn't go against his doctor. Just like with chemo, its dangerous yes but at some point you weigh that the cancer is more dangerous. You wouldn't say its dangerous to take malaria pills unless you mean its risks are dangerous RELATIVE to the risk of contracting malaria.

So Trump is at high risk and high exposure to COVID. Saying him taking the drug is "dangerous" implies a relatively higher danger relative to his higher risk getting COVID. Also, just because there isn't a scientific level of confidence that it works as a preventative measure doesn't mean the confidence is 0. Usually a drug needs an absurdly high confidence level like 95%(p=.05) for something like the FDA to recommend it. Theres still a chance it works.

So is it 'dangerous' like chemo or 'potentially dangerous' like other drugs which is what travelers are led to believe? Or do we just pick and chose which position to take based on what pairs well against Trump that day?

Quote :

" Studies have shown it to be inconclusive or even worse than taking nothing.

Going into a malaria zone? Sure, take it. Have lupus? Take it. Have something that this will do nothing against? Yeah, probably shouldn't."

The studies most often referenced were done in a different context (treating really sick people as opposed to prevention). There are ongoing clinical trials for use as prevention. You are acting like they have already proven it does nothing when there is anecdotal evidence that it works. They wouldn't waste time on clinical trials if there wasn't good reason to believe it might work

[Edited on May 20, 2020 at 12:54 PM. Reason : the legal analogy would be probable cause, its been charged but we are still awaiting trial.]

[Edited on May 20, 2020 at 12:55 PM. Reason : V you'd almost start to believe people go on discussion boards to DISCUSS things]

"I could find Trump wrong 90% of the time and then the 10% of the time he's right, and people are still bashing him"

Right and wrong require accountability. Being right has no meaning if you're unwilling to accept being wrong. On those occasions when Trump does manage to string a few words together into something parsable and coherent, he'll throw it away with contradiction or denial. Words that happen to be correct are hyped as genius. Others are forgotten or rewritten. Trump's words have no meaning. They're just leavings for horosho and the other coprophagous ilk.

^^^My intention was not to compare chemo with HCQ, my only intent was to draw attention to your moronic "reasoning" that "many uses" implies "not dangerous". If you can actually support the claim that HCQ is not dangerous, then do that; don't just spew bullshit at us and expect us to believe it. Up your logic game or get the fuck out, bro.

Also, when you actually lie in posts like this to defend Trump:

Quote :

"The funniest shit is that the model has deaths peaking today and experts have always said it will be safe to start easing restrictions as soon as you see deaths peak and start going down. According to all of that, the day would be...Easter. Did trump shoot the fucking bottle from a mile away?"

In terms of finding areas to praise Trump, IMO he's done a good job of really not doing too much from a fundamental policy POV. All of the favorable trends that were put in place under the Obama administration were for the most continued under Trump. That's something. Trump spends a lot of TV time and drama on executive orders and proposals that don't really amount to much in terms of policy, it's more or less theater to keep his base motivated as he does things like... pull out of Syria and let the turks and putin run a train on that place.

But his rhetoric is, to state the obvious, something that we haven't seen from a world leader since the WWII era, and it is scary as fuck. Not even Dubya had the bravado in hateful bigotry that he's shown.

I asked a question which really just shows that I'm open to the possibility of Trump being right. The answer to that question was no but I at least gave it a chance to play out. Thats the part you're leaving out. You don't even entertain alternatives to the way you assume things are.

Obviously that model was way off and most of the models and experts were way off multiple times now on deaths. Also, public officials have moved the goal posts several times about when it is ok to open so taken a quote from 2 months ago trying to apply it today is wrong.

Its unfair to evaluate a statement made long ago based on recently acquired wisdom. Wisdom that was not available until after that comment was made. There was even a time when Fauci said the virus wasn't a threat to the US. This is like if you went back and got a quote from February to make fun of someone who said that back then. This is a dynamic situation and the information we have is constantly changing to contradict previous information. My question was reasonable given the information I had at that time. It would be a lie if I said it today.

Its overgeneralizing. Trump has a tendency to be wrong thus you are assuming everything he says is wrong without evaluating the individual event and articulating why its wrong. It quickly advances from " things Trump says are usually wrong" to "Things are wrong because trump says them". I don't do that and it makes me standout.

The problem is that people who generalize one thing are more likely to generalize everything so that lets "Trump supporters agree with things Trump says" turn into "Anyone who doesn't automatically disagree with anything trump says is a trump supporter" and here we are.

[Edited on May 20, 2020 at 2:53 PM. Reason : also strange how the criticism on here has 100% overlap with CNN which "no one watches"]

[Edited on May 20, 2020 at 2:55 PM. Reason : shutting off travel from china which is one of the things he got right but went against establishmen]

"I asked a question which really just shows that I'm open to the possibility of Trump being right. The answer to that question was no but I at least gave it a chance to play out. Thats the part you're leaving out. You don't even entertain alternatives to the way you assume things are."

No, you asked a rhetorical question with the obvious intent of presenting Trump as a super genius with the unbelievable foresight to "shoot the fucking bottle from a mile away", much like when I ask you, "What, are you a fucking moron?", the intent isn't to actually ask a question. The intent is to imply that you actually are a fucking moron.

Quote :

"Obviously that model was way off and most of the models and experts were way off multiple times now on deaths. Also, public officials have moved the goal posts several times about when it is ok to open so taken a quote from 2 months ago trying to apply it today is wrong.

Its unfair to evaluate a statement made long ago based on recently acquired wisdom. Wisdom that was not available until after that comment was made. There was even a time when Fauci said the virus wasn't a threat to the US. This is like if you went back and got a quote from February to make fun of someone who said that back then. This is a dynamic situation and the information we have is constantly changing to contradict previous information. My question was reasonable given the information I had at that time. It would be a lie if I said it today."

More bullshit. It was a lie the day you posted it, and I pointed that out then:

"More bullshit. It was a lie the day you posted it, and I pointed that out then:"

I corrected you on my intent the day I posted it as well but you're still going with your initial misconception and pretending to have a better understanding of my intent than me.

You also said it was a lie because you hadn't heard it and that you would consider it a lie until I showed it to you. You weren't familiar with the quote and therefore were arguing about something you didn't know about just for the sake of confrontation. It would be different if I got the quote wrong, and you corrected it but you completely missed it. I can't help it if you missed it and was never willing to comb through endless pages of coronavirus coverage to find a particular quote.

Quote :

"LOL! The irony is that you are the one overgeneralizing here. I have never claimed everything he says is wrong, nor have I ever implied that.

What I'm doing is pointing out that you defended him when he was wrong. You bitch and whine about that and.....here we are."

but I didn't know he was wrong and still defend him. I just had bad information. As soon as I had the information to show me he was wrong, I admitted I was wrong. Thats my big point here though. Don't operate in absolutes. Sometimes the thing you thought was right ends up being wrong and sometimes the people you disagree with end up being right and thats ok. The key is being able to recognize reality and let go of invalidated opinions.

You're right. I too, overgeneralize a lot but its not ironic because the human brain is evolved to make rapid generalizations all the time. Everyone has blindspots and experience bias. Its up to us to point them out to each other. Thats not irony. Its why these type of discussions are important.

Quote :

"Shutting off travel clearly had no impact though, we have an enormous number of deaths. There’s no way to spin the numbers to hide the fact that the American response was an abysmal failure"

No just because the virus is deadly doesn't mean we failed. Enormous compared to what? This isn't h1n1. The government can't just change the nature of the virus.

How can you use the number of deaths as support for the idea that the travel ban didn't work? How would it not be higher if more people came in seeding it for longer? We have made it out ahead of most of Western Europe. I'd say that makes our death rate low relative to similar countries.

Our deaths certainly could have been three times as high if we had the same rate as Belgium, the country hit the hardest (you will never hear that on MSM) Spain, UK, and Italy have about twice the death rate as us. Ireland, netherlands, Sweden and France all have higher death rates as well.

[Edited on May 20, 2020 at 9:53 PM. Reason : you don't have to spin the numbers. They are already better]

Thats true but doesn't affect the point at all really considering the excess death data we do have from States. Even if we went extreme and counted all the excess deaths and attributed 100% of them to COVID (some of them have other causes), our death rate almost doubles, but certainly doesn't triple and falls far short of putting us in a league of our own in terms of having the highest death rate. At worst, our death rate is similar to the similar countries I listed and at best, those non-Belgium countries are undercounting as well and still have significantly higher death rates.

That 53% number went up to 75% in April when most of our deaths were counted (increased testing ) so doubling the total number now in May is an extremely liberal approach.

Also the fact that we're adding in all the excess people who died during the pandemic from non-COVID causes due to our uniquely shitty healthcare system, food system, and overall public health none of which are new under Trump.

The real tragedy is not that you guys are blaming Trump but that you aren't blaming the true root causes that existed before Trump and actually helped cause Trump in the first place. Thats why TDS pisses me off so much. He's become the scapegoat for everything. Even a global pandemic.

[Edited on May 20, 2020 at 11:56 PM. Reason : i can't see WAPO btw so when you read informative articles, it would be kind to share the info]

"I corrected you on my intent the day I posted it as well but you're still going with your initial misconception and pretending to have a better understanding of my intent than me.

You also said it was a lie because you hadn't heard it and that you would consider it a lie until I showed it to you. You weren't familiar with the quote and therefore were arguing about something you didn't know about just for the sake of confrontation. It would be different if I got the quote wrong, and you corrected it but you completely missed it. I can't help it if you missed it and was never willing to comb through endless pages of coronavirus coverage to find a particular quote."

No.

You attributed a bullshit claim to experts and I called you out on it. They never said what you claimed they said. You claimed that "experts have always said it will be safe to start easing restrictions as soon as you see deaths peak and start going down."

If experts always said that, it should be easy for you to supply a single, cited quote from an expert actually saying that. You're the one who made the claim, back it up. You hide behind the excuse that I just "missed" it. I can't miss something that never existed, dumbass. You can't back it up, so you resort to bullshit.

One thing I haven’t been able to figure out is if this is the data that people like Nate Silver use. If so, wow...

(And note, this is a CDC fuck up... but ultimately it’s an administration one too)

Quote :

" The real tragedy is not that you guys are blaming Trump but that you aren't blaming the true root causes that existed before Trump and actually helped cause Trump in the first place. Thats why TDS pisses me off so much. He's become the scapegoat for everything. Even a global pandemic."

At least relating to me, this is a lie. I even cited you and said that you were right (and wrong) in that structural and cultural factors were unavoidable but that Trump exasperated it with his incompetence. You seem hellbent on completely absolving him of all blame.

And what I quoted is like one step away from posting “Orange man bad” memes.

"The real tragedy is not that you guys are blaming Trump but that you aren't blaming the true root causes that existed before Trump and actually helped cause Trump in the first place. Thats why TDS pisses me off so much. He's become the scapegoat for everything. Even a global pandemic."

While trump may not be THE root cause, he is definitely a part of the root system that is feeding the kudzu choking the life out of the country.

Let’s look at everything Fred and Donald have been involved with (just off the top of my head):

Cabbage you haven't refuted anything. You've told me what you don't believe but what do you believe? What was Birx's recommendation back in March? No I will not comb through every task force briefing to find the quote. Thats an unreasonable waste of time for something that we both acknowledged was wrong over a month ago. I'm open to being wrong so either correct me or let it go. Stop making a confrontation just for the sake of hostility. Thats so toxic.

Quote :

" You seem hellbent on completely absolving him of all blame."

I've said all along that Trump is responsible for not doing anything to fix any of the systemic failures that existed in this country when he came into power but no, I will not go beyond that and say that Trump is the reason why we have the failures. Its really gone so far that you see people blaming global problems like climate change and COVID on Trump and insinuating they wouldn't be major problems if he wasn't in office. He's not the all-powerful dictator you may think he is and just a tiny part of the reason why we haven't fixed systemic problems.

Lets imagine Trump were to suddenly declare war on any of the major systemic problems in this country, he would have faced backlash from congress and wouldn't have gotten any major reform through both the house and senate. He did actually face some backlash and xenophobia charges for shutting off tourism from China.

Obama didn't prevent or end the lead crisis or the opioid crisis but it would be crazy to say those were his fault. No one person can be blamed for systemic failures. Foreign policy is the only place presidents have near that level of control. I'd say you can blame Bush for the Iraq war but thats the only big thing I can think of that falls on an administration and even that is debatable because intel played a major role.

The Trump family is a pretty good summary of the cultural rot in this country."

If we're being frank, that list is representative of this country's cultural identity in general. The Trump family, to a certain degree, is representative of the culmination the goals and ideals of it's people. Literally why he won. The political elite do not represent the typical American anyway close to the way Trump does.

[Edited on May 21, 2020 at 1:52 PM. Reason : "rot" is a mischaracterization of many of those principles the country was founded on]

"Cabbage you haven't refuted anything. You've told me what you don't believe but what do you believe? What was Birx's recommendation back in March? No I will not comb through every task force briefing to find the quote. Thats an unreasonable waste of time for something that we both acknowledged was wrong over a month ago. I'm open to being wrong so either correct me or let it go. Stop making a confrontation just for the sake of hostility. Thats so toxic."

Simple logic and common sense (things which I expect you are only vaguely familiar with) demonstrate that reopening "as soon as you see deaths peak" is way too soon. I don't recall seeing what Birx's recommendation was back in March, but I guaran-fucking-tee you it was not what you claim. All you manage to do is perpetuate bullshit because you can't simply back your claim up. Sad.

And we both most certainly did not acknowledge it was wrong over a month ago. Hell, you're still claiming today that that's what the experts said back then. Indeed, evidently you're barely capable of even understanding what I am disagreeing with you on. It's not on whether that's a good policy---It's whether or not the experts ever claimed that. They did not.

You're just saying you disagree with me which is fine but you aren't making an argument to refute the thing you're disagreeing with. I'm completely open to being wrong but "you're wrong" doesn't cut it. If you're going to try to call someone out for being wrong, you really need to have your shit together. You aren't putting forward what she actually said which would show me where I might have misinterpreted something. You aren't doing that because as you admitted, you aren't familiar with the quote at all. In that case, there is no path forward so you just need to leave it alone. I'm done with that and will only be addressing actual points going forward.

It makes a lot of sense logically. Once you are on the back end of the death curve, its safe to assume that you have been on the back end of the infection curve for weeks. The people who die today, were infected several weeks ago (at least 2). The death rate lags both the infection rate and the hospitalization rates. Once you can confirm deaths have peaked and started to come down, you can therefore also confirm that the infection rate and hospitalization rate have also peaked. An important contextual note is that the quote came from an era when the goal of the shutdown was to prevent icu's and hospitals in general from overflowing. An era when the shutdown was planned to last just 14 days then was extended to last 30 days just to be sure.

Experts can be wrong. If you go to the Fauci thread, you can see a long list of quotes from Fauci that turned out to be wrong. Like I said, in hindsight, it was wrong for me to use quotes that were days old because the guidance was changing so often.

[Edited on May 21, 2020 at 6:26 PM. Reason : let it go]

[Edited on May 21, 2020 at 6:31 PM. Reason : or know what you are talking about. ]

It's not subject to argument, son. They Simply. Did. Not. Say. That. There's no "argument" they didn't say that--I merely have to point to the complete absence of evidence. You, on the other hand, are epically failing to present said evidence.

Quote :

"You aren't doing that because as you admitted, you aren't familiar with the quote at all."

LOL There's no quote to be familiar with. It does not exist.

Simple

Quote :

"It makes a lot of sense logically. Once you are on the back end of the death curve, its safe to assume that you have been on the back end of the infection curve for weeks. The people who die today, were infected several weeks ago (at least 2). The death rate lags both the infection rate and the hospitalization rates. Once you can confirm deaths have peaked and started to come down, you can therefore also confirm that the infection rate and hospitalization rate have also peaked. An important contextual note is that the quote came from an era when the goal of the shutdown was to prevent icu's and hospitals in general from overflowing. An era when the shutdown was planned to last just 14 days then was extended to last 30 days just to be sure. "

"It makes a lot of sense logically. Once you are on the back end of the death curve, its safe to assume that you have been on the back end of the infection curve for weeks. The people who die today, were infected several weeks ago (at least 2). The death rate lags both the infection rate and the hospitalization rates. Once you can confirm deaths have peaked and started to come down, you can therefore also confirm that the infection rate and hospitalization rate have also peaked. An important contextual note is that the quote came from an era when the goal of the shutdown was to prevent icu's and hospitals in general from overflowing. An era when the shutdown was planned to last just 14 days then was extended to last 30 days just to be sure. "

Oh, and while I agree that given some decent span of time, it would be perfectly logical to lessen restrictions after the death rate has peaked.

That, however, is quite a bit different from easing restrictions a mere two fucking days after the death rate peak.

"It's not subject to argument, son. They Simply. Did. Not. Say. That. There's no "argument" they didn't say that--I merely have to point to the complete absence of evidence. You, on the other hand, are epically failing to present said evidence."

Well I'm saying let it go because it doesn't matter anymore since it turned out to be wrong either way. Plus, It was over a month ago.

Quote :

"Oh, and while I agree that given some decent span of time, it would be perfectly logical to lessen restrictions after the death rate has peaked.

That, however, is quite a bit different from easing restrictions a mere two fucking days after the death rate peak.

That is what you said. That is what is bullshit."

I agreed with you on that the first day because you can't know deaths have peaked instead of just randomly varied downward for two days. You didn't understand that I was basing that whole thing off of a hypothetical model (a model that was wrong) and not real data. Its moot now.

[Edited on May 22, 2020 at 1:19 AM. Reason : the whole post was according to that model]

"I agreed with you on that the first day because you can't know deaths have peaked instead of just randomly varied downward for two days. You didn't understand that I was basing that whole thing off of a hypothetical model (a model that was wrong) and not real data. Its moot now."

...(sigh).....Jesus Christ you are dense.

Yes, I know you "agreed" with me on that first day, saying then what I just quoted now. However, as I also explained to you that first day, that's completely irrelevant to my claim, which was then and now continues to be: Even if you did somehow know that deaths actually have peaked on a given day, it's still way too soon to ease restrictions a mere two fucking days after that peak. Your idea is not just wrong in practice simply because it's impossible to know when the death peak is until significantly after the fact; it's wrong in theory to begin with.

Not to mention the fact that I continue to call bullshit on your erroneous attribution of that claim to the experts.

(It's pretty sad when you can't even grasp what I am explicitly calling bullshit on).

I keep trying to rationalize his Henry Ford “bloodlines” comment, but I can’t. There is no believable reason to bring that shit up except as an Easter egg for nazis. No reasonable person just brings that up in an off the cuff comment.

Also, the WH doctor that allowed a POTUS to do this should lose his license. It’s one thing for MAGA-fan 1 to take it but to give it to the commander in chief is just downright ridiculous, especially as a preventative.

Also, the WH doctor that allowed a POTUS to do this should lose his license. It’s one thing for MAGA-fan 1 to take it but to give it to the commander in chief is just downright ridiculous, especially as a preventative."

How did you miss the context of that study? They were using it to treat sick COVID patients. Trump is not a sick COVID patient using it as a preventative. Using a preventative to treat someone who is already very sick would generally be a bad idea. The media has taken this as the drug itself is dangerous no matter what and we already knew that wasn't the case. You have to use any drug the correct way. You could even use a drug the correct way but your dosage was too high and made it dangerous. That wouldn't mean the drug is bad in all other dosages.

You're acting like this study suggests Trump's use is dangerous. Its the same thing as giving it to someone who was dying of malaria. Drugs have to be used at certain times and that was far too late to reap the potential benefit Trump is aiming for.

"In mid-April, Michigan Medicine announced it would be enrolling participants in a massive, multi-site research pool of healthcare workers run by Duke University, including a 15,000-person study into whether hydroxychloroquine prevents or reduces the effects of COVID.

Meanwhile, Henry Ford Health System, one of dozens of hospitals across the country studying the drug’s potential, said it will continue a similar clinical trial.

It’s recruiting 3,000 healthy healthcare workers, first responders and bus drivers for the trial, to find out whether daily doses of hydroxychloroquine taken at home, can help people avoid contracting COVID-19. "

Should all their licenses be revoked or do they have valid reason to believe it might work? Obviously, theres not enough evidence to start giving it to everyone, but there is enough evidence to warrant doing a trial on 18,000 people, many of whom are essential workers. Let doctors be doctors. Stop ruling out a drug for use that is in phase 3 of clinical trials.

Quote :

"Pullen adds that millions of people take hydroxychloroquine for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis for extended amounts of time without concern. In the Minnesota clinical trials, which have enrolled nearly 3,000 people so far, there have not been any serious side effects reported, including cardiac arrhythmia, although the researchers are not conducting regular ECGs to screen for this."

and if Trump starts to develop side-effects, he could immediately be taken off the drug. They have so much medical equipment in the white house and are already monitoring him closely. He doesn't need to be worried about side-effects the same way as people involved in an at-home trial and even those people are good so far.

[Edited on May 22, 2020 at 12:05 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on May 22, 2020 at 12:08 PM. Reason : theres a hospital giving it to 3,000 healt workers as a preventative but you'd never hear it on MSM]

I never made any of the assumptions or statements you indicated above. Just that the Lancet article, which is by far the most robust study of COVID patients treated with HCQ (+), indicated a Higher mortality rate.

Considering Trump's overall health risk and morbid obesity, he probably should be dong everything possible to limit his exposure to COVID. Hopefully he's also taking a multi-vitamin and eating a lot of vegetables, which have both been shown to be more effective to preventing viruses than HCQ.

Yeah many drugs have dangers and are still prescribed based on risk assessment. No one's debating that. In isolation, not taking the drug is better than taking the drug. Did I really need to acknowledge that? You are intentionally interpreting everything I saw in the way that would make it as dumb as possible. Its bad faith.

The question should always be "are the dangers of taking the drug worth the potential benefit?" and it should only be answered by the prescribing doctor. A doctor who goes through with the prescription has assessed the risk and answered "yes" to that question. You are pretending to know more about the risk than the doctors.

Also why the context of the study was important and has been missed. The 25% chance of death was in a study done on sick COVID patients. The use in that case is dangerous. It doesn't "magically" become "not dangerous" for COVID patients. Trump is not a COVID patient so the elevated dangers associated with that study do not apply. You simply cannot apply the dangers from that study to different contexts.

Driving has dangersDriving fast increases those dangersDriving fast while intoxicated is very dangerousDriving fast in a controlled environment like a race track is not dangerous in the same way. The dangers of driving intoxicated don't "magically" go away when you aren't intoxicated.

Not a great analogy but I don't know how else to explain to you that the dangers change when you have a disease like COVID.

"Yeah many drugs have dangers and are still prescribed based on risk assessment. No one's debating that. In isolation, not taking the drug is better than taking the drug. Did I really need to acknowledge that? You are intentionally interpreting everything I saw in the way that would make it as dumb as possible. Its bad faith."

You were the one defending HCQ as a prophylactic for covid 19, despite the absolute lack of any evidence to justify it. What do you base your defense on?

Quote :

"The question should always be "are the dangers of taking the drug worth the potential benefit?" and it should only be answered by the prescribing doctor. A doctor who goes through with the prescription has assessed the risk and answered "yes" to that question. You are pretending to know more about the risk than the doctors."

OK, give me a cite that anything approaching a consensus of doctors have signed off HCQ as a covid 19 prophylactic. If you can't, guess what? You are the one pretending to know more than the doctors. LOL

Quote :

"Also why the context of the study was important and has been missed. The 25% chance of death was in a study done on sick COVID patients. The use in that case is dangerous. It doesn't "magically" become "not dangerous" for COVID patients. Trump is not a COVID patient so the elevated dangers associated with that study do not apply. You simply cannot apply the dangers from that study to different contexts."

I'm not claiming there were "elevated dangers", I was merely reminding you of the default dangers of HCQ, along with the fact that absolutely no medical benefit for covid 19 prevention has been established.

Quote :

"Driving has dangersDriving fast increases those dangersDriving fast while intoxicated is very dangerousDriving fast in a controlled environment like a race track is not dangerous in the same way. The dangers of driving intoxicated don't "magically" go away when you aren't intoxicated.

Not a great analogy but I don't know how else to explain to you that the dangers change when you have a disease like COVID."

Weren't you just defending its use to prevent covid? The issue is whether there is a benefit to taking the drug. Guess what? No benefit has been established

"You were the one defending HCQ as a prophylactic for covid 19, despite the absolute lack of any evidence to justify it. What do you base your defense on?"

There isn't a complete lack of evidence there is a lack of "proof" meaning lack of published research supporting it. This is because the trials have not had time to finish. It will take at least a year before they are able to publish.

Quote :

"OK, give me a cite that anything approaching a consensus of doctors have signed off HCQ as a covid 19 prophylactic. If you can't, guess what? You are the one pretending to know more than the doctors. LOL"

I didn't say a consensus. Obviously there isn't a consensus either way and doctors are making prescriptions on a case by case basis after going over the situation with their individual patient. There definitely isn't a consensus that it should NOT be used as a prophylaxis. The recommendation of Trump's personal doctor is all that counts in this case. That is who you know more than.

Quote :

"Weren't you just defending its use to prevent covid? The issue is whether there is a benefit to taking the drug. Guess what? No benefit has been established"

Its a new virus. Just because literature hasn't been published, doesn't mean there isn't evidence or good reason to suspect it might work. That is why we have clinical trials. Clinical trials aren't just done trying random things hoping they stick. They don't make it this far to the type of scale they have reached if adverse risk is observed. They would cancel the trial at that point. Are you telling me that the people conducting all these clinical trials are just dumb?

Who is running the clinical trials? Why would they put tens of thousands of lives at unnecessary danger if there is no potential benefit? Why would they use thousands of healthcare workers at a time like this if they didn't have any reason to believe it might work?

"There isn't a complete lack of evidence there is a lack of "proof" meaning lack of published research supporting it."

Go ahead and provide that evidence for HCQ as a covid 19 prophylactic, then, please. If it's not in the form of published research, then what form is it in?

Quote :

"I didn't say a consensus. Obviously there isn't a consensus either way and doctors are making prescriptions on a case by case basis after going over the situation with their individual patient. There definitely isn't a consensus that it should NOT be used as a prophylaxis. The recommendation of Trump's personal doctor is all that counts in this case. That is who you know more than."

Actually, what you said was:

Quote :

"The question should always be "are the dangers of taking the drug worth the potential benefit?" and it should only be answered by the prescribing doctor. A doctor who goes through with the prescription has assessed the risk and answered "yes" to that question. You are pretending to know more about the risk than the doctors."

Note the plural "doctors" in the final sentence. Perhaps it was inadvertant, but it sure as hell implies more than just one doctor. At any rate, your conclusion that I pretend "to know more about the risk than the doctors". At worst for me, it would be more accurate to say: "Some doctors disagree with my conclusion, but some agree with it." And I'm perfectly OK with that, you know. That's why, despite your omission of "consensus" out of your own ignorance, I decide to facilitate the discussion by inserting it myself. You're welcome! LOL

Also, concerning the letter you included from Trump's physician: You're going to have to highlight the portion for me where he actually acknowledges that he prescribed HCQ to Trump. Thanks in advance! LMFAO

Quote :

"Its a new virus. Just because literature hasn't been published, doesn't mean there isn't evidence or good reason to suspect it might work. That is why we have clinical trials. Clinical trials aren't just done trying random things hoping they stick. They don't make it this far to the type of scale they have reached if adverse risk is observed. They would cancel the trial at that point. Are you telling me that the people conducting all these clinical trials are just dumb? "

I'm saying that the clinical trials have not provided any evidence of a benefit. Period. That does not imply I think there's no reason to believe it would work--Just no evidence that it does. Are you even trying to comprehend?

"Go ahead and provide that evidence for HCQ as a covid 19 prophylactic, then, please. If it's not in the form of published research, then what form is it in?"

Theres published research that it works in vitro and anecdotal evidence that it works as a prophylactic. There is a high bar for being able to go from having evidence to having published research and thats a good thing but that doesn't mean anything that hasn't yet had research published can't work.

Quote :

"Therefore, of the two potential drugs, CQ appears to be the drug of choice for large-scale use due to its availability, proven safety record, and a relatively low cost."

"Note the plural "doctors" in the final sentence. Perhaps it was inadvertant, but it sure as hell implies more than just one doctor. At any rate, your conclusion that I pretend "to know more about the risk than the doctors". At worst for me, it would be more accurate to say: "Some doctors disagree with my conclusion, but some agree with it." And I'm perfectly OK with that, you know. That's why, despite your omission of "consensus" out of your own ignorance, I decide to facilitate the discussion by inserting it myself. You're welcome! LOL"

I meant plural because there are dozens of clinical trials right now doing the same thing and doctors are signing off on, administering, and participating in those trials.

Quote :

"Also, concerning the letter you included from Trump's physician: You're going to have to highlight the portion for me where he actually acknowledges that he prescribed HCQ to Trump. Thanks in advance! LMFAO"

"I'm saying that the clinical trials have not provided any evidence of a benefit. Period. That does not imply I think there's no reason to believe it would work--Just no evidence that it does. Are you even trying to comprehend?"

Do you understand how clinical trials work? No one just makes a massive clinical trial without evidence or knowingly puts subjects in danger like Tuskegee. I'll reiterate the legal analogy of charges being brought before the trial happens. The clinical trials haven't finished and they take a long time. It means we are at the point where we can go ahead to give the drug to thousands of people but not the general public because we want to make sure anyone taking it is closely monitored in case any adverse affects come about. The president is monitored even more closely than the clinical trial subjects.

Its going to be several months or even a year before anything gets published from those trials. Only then will we have the possibility of reaching the bar to say there is "established proof" that it works as a prophylactic. If it turns out the drug is too dangerous though, they will cancel the trial. They won't simply carry on with a trial if there is a unreasonable amount of risk from taking the drug. Individual subjects are monitored closely and taken off the drug if they have personal complications.

"Theres published research that it works in vitro and anecdotal evidence that it works as a prophylactic. There is a high bar for being able to go from having evidence to having published research and thats a good thing but that doesn't mean anything that hasn't yet had research published can't work. "

Great, but I think it's clear that I am looking for actual, clinically controlled studies that provide evidence for its usefulness. Not in vitro, in actual human beings.

Quote :

"I meant plural because there are dozens of clinical trials right now doing the same thing and doctors are signing off on, administering, and participating in those trials. "

Yes, I am aware that trials are going on. I am asking for actual evidence in favor of HCQ.

You know, that quote doesn't claim a prescription was written, and I will not take McEnany's word for it. To be honest, I would be skeptical of Trump's doctor's word for it; you've got a problem when you're relying on an administration known for it's lying for "evidence". Just so you know.

Quote :

"Do you understand how clinical trials work? No one just makes a massive clinical trial without evidence or knowingly puts subjects in danger like Tuskegee. I'll reiterate the legal analogy of charges being brought before the trial happens. The clinical trials haven't finished and they take a long time. It means we are at the point where we can go ahead to give the drug to thousands of people but not the general public because we want to make sure anyone taking it is closely monitored in case any adverse affects come about. The president is monitored even more closely than the clinical trial subjects.

Its going to be several months or even a year before anything gets published from those trials. Only then will we have the possibility of reaching the bar to say there is "established proof" that it works as a prophylactic. If it turns out the drug is too dangerous though, they will cancel the trial. They won't simply carry on with a trial if there is a unreasonable amount of risk from taking the drug. Individual subjects are monitored closely and taken off the drug if they have personal complications."

And none of that negates the fact that HCQ, by default, comes with certain risks and dangers (which your original post that I was responding to was denying). I don't deny that HCQ has benefits in some scenarios. All I am saying is that it's not without its dangers. You seem to agree with that now, but you weren't saying that originally:

Quote :

" The media has taken this as the drug itself is dangerous no matter what and we already knew that wasn't the case."

Bullshit. It has its dangers. Sometimes its benefits outweigh its dangers, but it always has dangers. Do you finally understand?

"Great, but I think it's clear that I am looking for actual, clinically controlled studies that provide evidence for its usefulness. Not in vitro, in actual human beings."

You need to understand that these things don't happen overnight. The virus is new. The trials are ongoing and won't be completed for a very long time unless, of course, its discovered that the drug is too dangerous to be worth trying out. (which is what the media is suggesting)

Quote :

"Yes, I am aware that trials are going on. I am asking for actual evidence in favor of HCQ."

Already been posted.

Quote :

"You know, that quote doesn't claim a prescription was written, and I will not take McEnany's word for it. To be honest, I would be skeptical of Trump's doctor's word for it; you've got a problem when you're relying on an administration known for it's lying for "evidence". Just so you know."

If they are all lying, then thats the issue and not the drug. I don't think the people running the clinical trials are lying though so there are still doctors signing off on it to be given to thousands of people even if the whole Trump team is lying.

Quote :

"Bullshit. It has its dangers. Sometimes its benefits outweigh its dangers, but it always has dangers. Do you finally understand?"

Well duh. Thats most prescription drugs and why we have a prescription process and control over these substances in general. I didn't think that needed to be stated because I thought we were debating whether it was a good idea or reckless for Trump to be taking the drug that was prescribed to him by his doctor.

TBC, CNN is leading with "Trump is taking this drug (prophylactically) even though studies show its dangerous for treating COVID patients"

[Edited on May 23, 2020 at 12:01 AM. Reason : Trump is not a COVID patient and those studies were not done in a prophylactic context]

"Well duh. Thats most prescription drugs and why we have a prescription process and control over these substances in general. I didn't think that needed to be stated because I thought we were debating whether it was a good idea or reckless for Trump to be taking the drug that was prescribed to him by his doctor."

Well, look: When you've already established your own ignorance by making such stupid comments as, "Hey, it has many uses so therefore it's not dangerous!!1!", don't expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt beyond what your own words say. (And, incidentally, I've seen some of the prime time Fox News hosts also say that HCQ is completely without risks, so it's not like my perception of your ignorance in this case is unprecedented.) Your own words said the drug does not have dangers. That was incorrect. I corrected you.

If you would like to avoid such altercations in the future, my prescription to you would be to, in the future, articulate what you are trying to say much more clearly.

Context is everything here. You are taking statements intentionally out of context just to have a chance to say "gotya" anytime every commonly known nuance wasn't carefully spelled out. If you want to make a sport out of that with me or foxnews then fine.

Quote :

"Doctors have been prescribing the drugs, already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for decades and they’re generally safe, although there are some serious side effects."

Quote :

"Therefore, of the two potential drugs, CQ appears to be the drug of choice for large-scale use due to its availability, proven safety record, and a relatively low cost.""

from the nature article

Danger and safety are relative and depend on context. Thats how people talk. I don't want to go out of my way to keep you from wasting your time pretending to teach me prescription drugs have potential dangers.